Analyses of God beliefs, atheism, religion, faith, miracles, evidence for religious claims, evil and God, arguments for and against God, atheism, agnosticism, the role of religion in society, and related issues.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

On some (particularly poor) versions of the design argument, the fact that life in the universe, much less human life, appears to be exceedingly rare is taken as significant. Recent research that arises from improved telescope imagery technology has been putting the number of Earth-like planets in our galaxy very high:

30 comments:

Are you referring to a version of the design argument put forth by Guillermo Gonzales and Jay Richards in the their book the privileged planet?

If so, merely characterizing it as poor as you did is no doubt a straw-man fallacy. What is fallacious in their argument?

Also, if you would actually present their argument, this article would be shown for what it is, unimpressive. One of the conditions needed for complex life on a planet is that it exists in the Goldilocks zone which means that a planet is not to far from the Sun, and not to close to the Sun for the existence of liquid water. Just because some planets similar in size to Earth are in the Goldilocks zone doesn't even begin to give one even a semi boner because there are at least 20 other factors that have to occur together on one of these planets and even if you assign a meager one in ten probability to each condition for life needed you get 10^(-15) which is 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 which one one thousandth to one one trillinth. Do you have anything worth getting excited over, or is this the best you have?

Oh yeah, in case you aren't going to do the math, even if there are 2 billion planets in the habitable zone that are close in diameter to the Earth, and there are 100 billion galaxies we would get a total of 200 billion "Earth-like" planets in the universe. Compared to 10^(-15) however, that is still a really small number. Moreover, the majority of galaxies on our universe are eithe irregular galaxies, which means there is no well-defined circumstellar habitable zone, and / or they are to young in the evolution of galaxies to have heavy elements to form "Earth-like" planets. So, even 200 illion is too high an estimate.

how many grains of sand are there on all the beach`s in the worldyet we don`t see sand castle`sdesigning and constructing themselves,quantities in and of themselves are irrelevat.There is vast quantities of builbing material on the earth but houses ,cars, etc dont design and build themselves, we need designer`s and builders common sense tell`s us that.

If we discover intelligent life on other planets, what would be the implications for religious belief? I would think that for Christians or Muslims, for instance, there would be a number of crises: did they have their own alien-Jesus/Muhammed? Are they are part of the divine creation in Genesis too? How come they never got mentioned? Are they inherently corrupted by sin too? What was God trying to accomplish by creating different forms of life in the universe? Do they have souls?

What version of the design argument are you calling poor, and why is it poor?

I am glad to see that you have dropped your original claim: that complex intelligent life is not unlikely after all.

Your other questions have no bearing whatsoever on the validity and soundness of any desing argument. If those questions were what you originally meant to discuss then please forgive my misunderstanding.

For someone who derides the lack of detail in other's argument, "Silly Athiest", you seem remarkably vague in your own critique. "About 20 other factors"? Which would these be? Are you just parroting the arguments Ward and Brownlee made in "Rare Earth"? Those have been pretty uniformly blown out of the water, from their basic claim about the rarity of planets in the first place to their insistence that a Luna-sized body and a Jovian streetsweeper would be necessary to clean debris out of the Goldilocks zone. (In fact, a lot of those arguments didn't even have to wait for actual astronomical discoveries to discredit them; anybody who'd point out that modern planet-survey techniques haven't found any earth-sized bodies — without bothering to mention that those techniques lacked the necessary resolution to find such bodies in the first place — doesn't really warrant a lot of attention outside the stand-up comedy circuit.) If you're talking about a different set of factors, then name them; and justify your calculations, which assume that each variable occurs independently of all the others.

The irregular galaxy argument is irrelevant to circumstellar Goldilocks zones; I'm guessing you meant the circumgalactic zones calculated by Lineweaver et al back in 2004. And rather than claiming that "there is no well-defined circumstellar habitable zone", it would be more accurate to claim that "the lethal radiation limiting the habitable zone along the coreward borders of spiral galaxies would not be limiting in galaxies lacking a spiral structure" — which actually increases the size of the habitable zone, all other things being equal (not sure about the metal content of those stars).

Something else rare-earthers forget is that the traditional circumstellar zone around sun-like stars doesn't include potential habitable zones around the moons of gas giants; such moons, even in our own solar system, are known to generate significant internal heat through the sheer tidal stress of their own orbits. Given the prevalence of gas giants and brown dwarfs throughout the galaxy, the conventional Goldilocks zone is likely to be too conservative, if anything.

Finally, Martin's aversion to words like "can", "might", "potential", and "possible" betrays an ignorance of science all too common among the religious. Scientists are trained to be conservative in their assessments, to use extreme caution in straying beyond the data, to be ever-conscious of the fact that evidence yet discovered may prove them wrong. It is far more honorable (and more intelligent) to state up-front that these are possibilities, yet to be proven, than it is to claim "I don't understand how this happened: therefore the Great Sky Fairy did it."

Was it Montagu who said "Scientists have proof without certainty; Creationists have certainty without proof"?

"I would think that for Christians or Muslims, for instance, there would be a number of crises"

I think you may be dramatically overstating your case due to wishful thinking. If the Jews were comfortable with a God who "chose" a small minority of humans and left the rest of earth's intelligent life to wail in the outer darkness, and if Christians weren't shaken by the discovery of races like the Chinese who had never known an Abrahamic faith, and if all of the faiths have learned to contend with the intelligence of dolphins and chimps -- I fail to see a scenario where intelligent life on other planets would make a major difference. It's not as if the God of Abraham ever conferred "chosen" status on planets instead of peoples.

I don't doubt that there are people who argue "The Universe is inhospitable to life, therefore God exists". But it's a rather bizarre argument, as you've already pointed out, and certainly not a very common argument for theism, either currently or historically. It's nowhere near as foundational to theism your use of the word "crises" would imply. I must conclude that you're exaggerating for dramatic effect.

Matt - to say if we discover life on other planets it would be a problem for christians is a nonsense, it would be like me saying if christ returns to earth tomorrow that would be a problem for atheist`s, its not evidence its just saying if i had evidence about such and such, but you don`t.But just for a moment lets deal with what we know about life, life always come`s from existing life, no known exception,the greatest minds in the world cannot make life , no one has the slightest idea how life could arise from non life , so please explain how life exists on earth , and forget about ET for now.

Two words for you, Martin: synthetic biology. Look it up. You'd be surprised how close we are to creating life from nonliving components (hell, if you define viruses as living we did it years ago).

As to how life originally got started on this planet, I could run a whole shitload of terms past you: catalytic clays, Iron Sulphide Membranes, RNA worlds, pyranosal nucleotides. They'd mean nothing to you unless you had a background in biology. If you lack the time or the inclination to get the relevant degrees, look up the work of (for starters) L.E. Orgel. You should find lots of references online; those will lead you to others. Assuming you're truly interested, of course.

Again: the fact that you find something mysterious does not make it either unknown or unknowable.

@ martin:There are lots of ideas on how life could get started from non-life. The problem is testing those ideas, which is what science requires. We're talking about chemistry that happened billions of years ago.No one has any explanation for how a god would arise, how a god would create a universe, or create life. Of course, religion doesn't require testable theories, does it?I'm constantly amazed at people whose idea of a fair debate is one where they can posit the existence of a supremely powerful intelligence that requires no evidence, while the opponent has to provide conclusive proof of chemical reactions that took place billions of years ago.You're right, though, that alien life would not be a problem for Christians, since any ad hoc explanation will do. You don't even need to go "one size fits all" with it; each sect could have its own explanation, and you could all pretend that you agree.And when you are ignorant of something, do you just assume everyone else is as well, or do you know better? One is stupid, the other is dishonest. Take your pick.

Do a Web search for "Al Moritz Origin of Life". Al is a theist and a biochemist, and he explains how life could have plausibly arisen from chemical reactions without the need for a creator to intervene and violate the laws of nature.

The argument from ignorance ("God of the gaps") has got to be the worst possible argument for theism. You're banishing your god to an ever-shrinking slice of reality defined as "whatever doesn't yet have a naturalistic explanation". I can't believe you would do that deliberately, if you actually believe in god, unless you're trying to starve him to death.

once again the evolutionist faith comes to the fore , telling me that we as intellegent creatures , are near to making life somehow explains how life made itself, how can you not see the contratdictionyou need life to make life.oh no it happened billions of years ago by itself but when we take all these chemicals to a lab we as intelegent as we are can`t make it happen is that reasonable i think not, walking along an empty beach you come across a well constructed sandcastle, you can theorise, postulate , and guess, how it might have got there, perhaps wind or waves acting on the grains of sand , but we all know we would believe someone designed and built it because its logical to do so , so i would not be proposing a person of the gaps to explain the sandcastle I would just be using my God given logic which tells me complexity does not arise by random forces.By the way do some real searching for the origin of life and if you can find a paper , which does not use the words, maybe , perhaps, possibly, if only, come back to me , because in the analagy re jumbo jets and junk yards if by a million to one chance 2 pieces of the jumbo jet came together all you evolutionists would be screaming we are on our way to getting a working jet, but would we be? no. simply put you need intelligent life to make complexity not randomness from nothing.

and one more thing , please don`t tell me the laws of nature did it, without telling me what specific laws of nature you are refering toThe 2nd law of thermodynamics is order to disorder, increasing entropy, so please tell me what natural law produces order from disorder, what law makes people from hydrogen gas, what law makes life from non life.And please dont tell me time , if you ask an engineer how he built a bridge he would not tell you, time , time is how long it takes not how it was acomplished.

telling me that we as intellegent creatures , are near to making life somehow explains how life made itself, how can you not see the contratdiction…

You stated that "the greatest minds in the world cannot make life". I pointed out that they could. I contradicted an ignorant statement on your part — and in fact, I saw it clearly.

Of course, that's not the contradiction you're referring to. You're mixing up two lines of argument entirely (one about whether people know how to create life, the other about how life got started in the first place), and pretending that my comments on one subject were intended to answer the other. If you put half as much effort into spell-checking as you do into the recitation of creationist fallacies, you'd be — well, you'd be someone who could at least spell correctly when parroting creationist fallacies. I gotta say, though, I'm not hopeful.

Regarding your comments about the second law of thermodynamics, evolution does not decrease entropy; it merely slows the rate at which entropy increases. On the remote chance that you're actually interested in learning about this stuff (as opposed to merely parroting random fortune-cookie snippets from the Discovery Institute), try reading Evolution and Entropy by Dan Brooks and Ed Wiley.

The remainder of your commentary is merely a rehash of previous bullshit points that have already been answered, expressed in syntax fractured enough to serve as an analogy for that random-junkyard imagery you're so fond of. We've already answered your questions here; repeating them with even worse spelling doesn't disguise the fact that you're just recycling the same old shit. Go educate yourself to the point where you can respond to new input with more intelligence than a broken record.

"expressed in syntax fractured enough to serve as an analogy for that random-junkyard imagery you're so fond of."

That was my reaction upon reading his response, too. I think he is a bot like Chomksybot, accreting random clauses from a corpus of apologetic texts. It's an elaborate prank designed to show that randomness can produce things that we consider to be ordered -- even arguments against the possibility of randomness resulting in order.

To Peter and JS please forgive my ignorance and bad spelling ,but without refering my to some book can you please present the actual evidence of which you know,for how life began from non life, how hydrogen gas and small amount of helium became people , how order and design comes from random actions, if you can present present actial experimental evidence for any of the above I will be mighty impressed.

Why? Assuming for the moment that you're not mentally retarded, both ignorance and bad spelling are the result of laziness. I can't think of a good reason to forgive either.

but without refering my to some book can you please present the actual evidence of which you know,for how life began from non life

Don't like books, huh? You do realize that books are where this "actual evidence" is usually synthesized and presented in a form tractable to laypeople?

Ah well. No problem. Books just synthesize older research anyway; the cutting-edge stuff shows up first in the technical journals. So here you go: check out Orgel, LE, 2004: "Prebiotic Chemistry and the Origin of the RNA World", Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39:99—123.

…if you can present present actial experimental evidence for any of the above I will be mighty impressed.

Not as impressed as I'll be when you do the same for your hypothesis. That's your assignment now, Martin: hold yourself to the same standard that you'd hold us. Present actual evidence of the mechanism by which an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, self-aware entity can arise from nothing at all. Keep in mind that lack of "actual evidence" — which you find so objectionable when applied to prebiotic chemical reactions for which there is, in fact, considerable evidence — must logically be orders of magnitude more objectionable when applied to a deity more complex than the entire universe. (Unless of course you meant that sand-castle argument literally, and your God is actually no more complex than a molded pile of silicon on a beach somewhere.)

Before handing in your work, check it for internal inconsistency — for example, claims such as "you need intelligent life to make complexity not randomness from nothing" (which means either that 1) god was created by intelligent life, or 2) god is not complex). Also check your work for common fallacies such as "argument from incredulity"; you may find such arguments compelling, but it is difficult to express how unimpressed the rest of us are by "It's beyond my understanding therefore the Magic Sky Fairy did it". Especially when put forth by someone whose "understanding" doesn't extend far enough to spell the word "actual".

peter- the creation of life and the universe was a once off historical event I assume you agree, I was not there to see it so I believe certain thing based on circumstantial evidence to believe God did it, you being a man of science must have proof, I assume as words like believe and faith are nor words of science , so once again please tell me how life began from non life , how the complex universe came into being from just hydrogen gas and small ammounts of helium since thats all that was created in the big bang.Maybe you dont understand how this could happen thats why you are not presenting any facts to back up your argument , maybe your faith is in men like Dawkins , Coyne et al and you believe they understand it so it must be so.so I will tell you what I do know.life alway comes from life there is as yet no know exception2nd law is the rule in the universe thats why its called a law.hydrogen gas does not form into people no matter how long you leave it.If i came across a working model of our solar system I would assume someone designed and built it so then I conclude the real thing being a million time larger and more complex must be designed and built by someonw also .so any facts and evidence from your side would be appreciated.

Oh, Martin. You didn't even start the assignment before talking. What am I going to do with you?

Fail you, for starters.

sorry I should have said the creation of life and the universe were once off events

Actually, both your attempts were wrong. You'll have to try again.

But if you do, I won't be around to correct you any more. I should point out before I leave, though, that my acceptance of naturalistic evolution is not because I have "faith" in Dawkins, Coyne, or William Shatner's mother for that matter. I accept these things because I've spent decades studying them: I've earned my Ph.D., I've done research, I've studied the technical literature, I've even contributed to it. I've taught evolutionary principles at the university level. People like Dawkins have spent their whole adult lives researching these things.

How much time have you spent studying these issues, Martin? What credentials qualify you to hold up your own prideful ignorance as evidence against mountains of fact and logic that you can't even be bothered to look at?

thats why you are not presenting any facts to back up your argument…

When you've asked questions that might — if I squint really hard — almost read as though they were honestly asked, I've shown you where to get the answers. You refuse to look them up. You refuse to even try. Instead, you demand exhaustive treatises on biochemical evolution and the history of the inflationary universe, crammed into the comment fields of a personal blog; you demand an education in advanced physics and biology, simplified so that it can be understood by some semiliterate who lacks even fourth-grade spelling skills. You want the insights that I earned over three degrees and two postdocs, insights that real experts work for years to acquire — and if I suggest that you perform so much as a Google search in pursuit of that goal, you cross your arms and declare that I have no evidence to offer.

I've noticed you're fond of analogies. Here's one: I am not able to teach my cat about the Periodic Table of elements. That does not mean the Periodic Table is a myth. Likewise, the fact that you are simply too stupid and/or lazy to look up relevant evidence — even when someone points you directly at it — does not mean that evidence is lacking. It only means that you do not want see it.

If you want me to attempt to give you a proper grounding in evolutionary theory, you'll have to be willing to do homework, like any real pupil. You'll also have to pay me the salary I got for teaching this stuff at university. Until that point, I'm sorry but my time is too valuable to waste on ignorant assholes whose only response to answers is to slap hands over ears and mindlessly repeat the same question at endlessly increasing volume.

so what you are saying is that if you keep calling me enough names , the big bang , macro evolution , etc all become true wow that sure is some teaching skill`s you have.I will make it simple for you , please present one example just one of a life form arising from non life. You see I belive that life comes from life , I can do this by experimentation, observation, etc you know science stuff ,so please explain to me why you believe the contrary , and a little evidence may help your case.By the way where I grew up they had a saying it was give me your money or I will stab you, so the name calling I have had worse.

I can only assume that Peter has ceased this debate claiming my ignorance as the reason for doing so, maybe , but with most evolutionists the real reason is lack of evidence. Most evolutionist need to admit that both evolution and creation are both matters of faith neither position`s can be proven ,all either side can do is present circumstantial evidence to back up their arguement and we can then weigh up this evidence to see which is the most reasonable explaination for the evidence. Do you agree Matt seeing that you were very happy to think peter had put me in my place , if you disagree please state why , and can anyone please present some evidence to back up their position and not just say such and such say`s such and such, but present some evidence so at least I can understand what you are actually defending and you understand what you are defending

lets look at it his way , exceptions and rules, if you fall from an airplane at 30,000 feet without a parachute the rule is you will die but there are exceptions and people have lived.with this in mind lets weight up the evidence1- hydrogen gas left long enough becomes people2- mutations in reproduction3- beneficial mutations4- life from non life- pasteur5- random making complex without design6- 2 law of thermodynamic`s these are just some thing we can ask in these things are they the rule or the exception.for instance are there any benifical mutations? I say no but if there are they are the exception.so does a large collection of rules or exceptions make thing the way they are you deceide, for me I would prefer to get off a plane that has landed than get out at 30,000 feet, and this time after time after time.

My book is out:

Search This Blog

Atheism

Author:

Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Rochester. Teaching at CSUS since 1996. My main area of research and publication now is atheism and philosophy of religion. I am also interested in philosophy of mind, epistemology, and rational decision theory/critical thinking.

Quotes:

"Science. It works, bitches."

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

"Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever until the end of time. But he loves you! He loves you and he needs money!"George Carlin 1937 - 2008

Many Paths, No God.

I don't go to church, I AM a church, for fuck's sake. I'm MINISTRY. --Al Jourgensen

Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, “It is a matter of faith, and above reason.”- John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

If life evolved, then there isn't anything left for God to do.

The universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe. Victor Stenger

Skeptical theists choose to ride the trolley car of skepticism concerning the goods that God would know so as to undercut the evidential argument from evil. But once on that trolley car it may not be easy to prevent that skepticism from also undercutting any reasons they may suppose they have for thinking that God will provide them and the worshipful faithful with life everlasting in his presence. William Rowe

Unless you're one of those Easter-bunny vitalists who believes that personality results from some unquantifiable divine spark, there's really no alternative to the mechanistic view of human nature. Peter Watts

The essence of humanity's spiritual dilemma is that we evolved genetically to accept one truth and discovered another. E.O. Wilson

Creating humans who could understand the contrast between good and evil without subjecting them to eons of horrible suffering would be an utterly inconsequential matter for an omnipotent being. MM

The second commandment is "Thou shall not construct any graven images." Is this really the pinnacle of what we can achieve morally? The second most important moral principle for all the generations of humanity? It would be so easy to improve upon the 10 Commandments. How about "Try not to deep fry all of your food"? Sam Harris

Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody--not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms--had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would think--though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one--that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great

We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true--that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

If atheism is a religion, then not playing chess is a hobby.

"Imagine a world in which generations of human beings come to believe that certain films were made by God or that specific software was coded by him. Imagine a future in which millions of our descendants murder each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or Windows 98. Could anything--anything--be more ridiculous? And yet, this would be no more ridiculous than the world we are living in." Sam Harris, The End of Faith, 36.

"Only a tiny fraction of corpsesfossilize, and we are lucky to have as many intermediate fossils as we do. We could easily have had no fossils at all, and still the evidence for evolution from other sources, such as molecular genetics and geographical distribution, would be overwhelmingly strong. On the other hand, evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 127.

One cannot take, "believing in X gives me hope, makes me moral, or gives me comfort," to be a reason for believing X. It might make me moral if I believe that I will be shot the moment I do something immoral, but that doesn't make it possible for me to believe it, or to take its effects on me as reasons for thinking it is true. Matt McCormick

Add this blog to your Google Page

Top Ten Myths about Belief in God

1. Myth: Without God, life has no meaning.

There are 1.2 billion Chinese who have no predominant religion, and 1 billion people in India who are predominantly Hindu. And 65% of Japan's 127 million people claim to be non-believers. It is laughable to suggest that none of these billions of people are leading meaningful lives.

2. Myth: Prayer works.

Numerous studies have now shown that remote, blind, inter-cessionary prayer has no effect whatsoever of the health or well-being of subject's health, psychological states, or longevity. Furthermore, we have no evidence to support the view that people who wish fervently in their heads for things that they want get those things at any higher rate than people who do not.

3. Myth: Atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers.

There are hundreds of millions of non-believers on the planet living normal, decent, moral lives. They love their children, care about others, obey laws, and try to keep from doing harm to others just like everyone else. In fact, in predominately non-believing countries such as in northern Europe, measures of societal health such as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy, per capita income, education, homicide, suicide, gender equality, and political coercion are better than they are in believing societies.

4. Myth: Belief in God is compatible with the descriptions, explanations and products of science.

In the past, every supernatural or paranormal explanation of phenomena that humans believed turned out to be mistaken; science has always found a physical explanation that revealed that the supernatural view was a myth. Modern organisms evolved from lower life forms, they weren't created 6,000 years ago in the finished state. Fever is not caused by demon possession. Bad weather is not the wrath of angry gods. Miracle claims have turned out to be mistakes, frauds, or deceptions. So we have every reason to conclude that science will continue to undermine the superstitious worldview of religion.

5. Myth: We have immortal souls that survive the death of the body.

We have mountains of evidence that makes it clear that our consciousness, our beliefs, our desires, our thoughts all depend upon the proper functioning of our brains our nervous systems to exist. So when the brain dies, all of these things that we identify with the soul also cease to exist. Despite the fact that billions of people have lived and died on this planet, we do not have a single credible case of someone's soul, or consciousness, or personality continuing to exist despite the demise of their bodies. Allegations of spirit chandlers, psychics, ghost stories, and communications with the dead have all turned out to be frauds, deceptions, mistakes, and lies.

6. Myth: If there is no God, everything is permitted. Only belief in God makes people moral.

Consider the billions of people in China, India, and Japan above. If this claim was true, none of them would be decent moral people. So Ghandi, the Buddha, and Confucius, to name only a few were not moral people on this view, not to mention these other famous atheists: Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Aldous Huxley, Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Elizabeth Cady-Stanton, John Stuart Mill, Galileo, George Bernard Shaw, Gloria Steinam, James Madison, John Adams, and so on.

7. Myth: Believing in God is never a root cause of significant evil.

The counter examples of cases where it was someone's belief in God that was the direct justification for their perpetrated horrendous evils on humankind are too numerous to mention.

8. Myth: The existence of God would explain the origins of the universe and humanity.

All of the questions that allegedly plague non-God attempts to explain our origins--why are we here, where are we going, what is the point of it all, why is the universe here--still apply to the faux explanation of God. The suggestion that God created everything does not make it any clearer to us where it all came from, how he created it, why he created it, where it isall going. In fact, it raises even more difficult mysteries: how did God, operating outside the confines of space, time, and natural law "create" or "build" a universe that has physical laws? We have no precedent and maybe no hope of answering or understanding such a possibility. What does it mean to say that some disembodied, spiritual being who knows everything and has all power, "loves" us, or has thoughts, or goals, or plans? How could such a being have any sort of personal relationship with beings like us?

9. Myth: Even if it isn't true, there's no harm in my believing in God anyway.

People's religious views inform their voting, how they raise their children, what they think is moral and immoral, what laws and legislation they pass, who they are friends and enemies with, what companies they invest in, where they donate to charities, who they approve and disapprove of, who they are willing to kill or tolerate, what crimes they are willing to commit, and which wars they are willing to fight. How could any reasonable person think that religious beliefs are insignificant.

10: Myth: There is a God.

Common Criticisms of Atheism (and Why They’re Mistaken)

1. You can’t prove atheism.You can never prove a negative, so atheism requires as much faith as religion.

Atheists are frequently accosted with this accusation, suggesting that in order for non-belief to be reasonable, it must be founded on deductively certain grounds. Many atheists within the deductive atheology tradition have presented just those sorts of arguments, but those arguments are often ignored. But more importantly, the critic has invoked a standard of justification that almost none of our beliefs meet. If we demand that beliefs are not justified unless we have deductive proof, then all of us will have to throw out the vast majority of things we currently believe—oxygen exists, the Earth orbits the Sun, viruses cause disease, the 2008 summer Olympics were in China, and so on. The believer has invoked one set of abnormally stringent standards for the atheist while helping himself to countless beliefs of his own that cannot satisfy those standards. Deductive certainty is not required to draw a reasonable conclusion that a claim is true.

As for requiring faith, is the objection that no matter what, all positions require faith?Would that imply that one is free to just adopt any view they like?Religiousness and non-belief are on the same footing?(they aren’t).If so, then the believer can hardly criticize the non-believer for not believing. Is the objection that one should never believe anything on the basis of faith?Faith is a bad thing?That would be a surprising position for the believer to take, and, ironically, the atheist is in complete agreement.

2. The evidence shows that we should believe.

If in fact there is sufficient evidence to indicate that God exists, then a reasonable person should believe it. Surprisingly, very few people pursue this line as a criticism of atheism. But recently, modern versions of the design and cosmological arguments have been presented by believers that require serious consideration. Many atheists cite a range of reasons why they do not believe that these arguments are successful. If an atheist has reflected carefully on the best evidence presented for God’s existence and finds that evidence insufficient, then it’s implausible to fault them for irrationality, epistemic irresponsibility, or for being obviously mistaken.Given that atheists are so widely criticized, and that religious belief is so common and encouraged uncritically, the chances are good that any given atheist has reflected more carefully about the evidence.

3. You should have faith.

Appeals to faith also should not be construed as having prescriptive force the way appeals to evidence or arguments do. The general view is that when a person grasps that an argument is sound, that imposes an epistemic obligation of sorts on her to accept the conclusion. One person’s faith that God exists does not have this sort of inter-subjective implication. Failing to believe what is clearly supported by the evidence is ordinarily irrational. Failure to have faith that some claim is true is not similarly culpable. At the very least, having faith, where that means believing despite a lack of evidence or despite contrary evidence is highly suspect. Having faith is the questionable practice, not failing to have it.

4. Atheism is bleak, nihilistic, amoral, dehumanizing, or depressing.

These accusations have been dealt with countless times. But let’s suppose that they are correct. Would they be reasons to reject the truth of atheism? They might be unpleasant affects, but having negative emotions about a claim doesn’t provide us with any evidence that it is false. Imagine upon hearing news about the Americans dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki someone steadfastly refused to believe it because it was bleak, nihilistic, amoral, dehumanizing, or depressing. Suppose we refused to believe that there is an AIDS epidemic that is killing hundreds of thousands of people in Africa on the same grounds.

5.Atheism is bad for you.Some studies in recent years have suggested that people who regularly attend church, pray, and participate in religious activities are happier, live longer, have better health, and less depression.

First, these results and the methodologies that produced them have been thoroughly criticized by experts in the field.Second, it would be foolish to conclude that even if these claims about quality of life were true, that somehow shows that there is theism is correct and atheism is mistaken.What would follow, perhaps, is that participating in social events like those in religious practices are good for you, nothing more.There are a number of obvious natural explanations.Third, it is difficult to know the direction of the causal arrow in these cases.Does being religious result in these positive effects, or are people who are happier, healthier, and not depressed more inclined to participate in religions for some other reasons?Fourth, in a number of studies atheistic societies like those in northern Europe scored higher on a wide range of society health measures than religious societies.

Given that atheists make up a tiny proportion of the world’s population, and that religious governments and ideals have held sway globally for thousands of years, believers will certainly lose in a contest over “who has done more harm,” or “which ideology has caused more human suffering.”It has not been atheism because atheists have been widely persecuted, tortured, and killed for centuries nearly to the point of extinction.

Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these regimes has been that they became too much like religions.“Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”

7.Atheists are harsh, intolerant, and hateful of religion.

Sam Harris has advocated something he calls “conversational intolerance.”For too long, a confusion about religious tolerance has led people to look the other way and say nothing while people with dangerous religious agendas have undermined science, the public good, and the progress of the human race.There is no doubt that people are entitled to read what they choose, write and speak freely, and pursue the religions of their choice.But that entitlement does not guarantee that the rest of us must remain silent or not verbally criticize or object to their ideas and their practices, especially when they affect all of us.Religious beliefs have a direct affect on who a person votes for, what wars they fight, who they elect to the school board, what laws they pass, who they drop bombs on, what research they fund (and don’t), which social programs they fund (and don’t), and a long list of other vital, public matters.Atheists are under no obligation to remain silent about those beliefs and practices that urgently need to be brought into the light and reasonably evaluated.

Real respect for humanity will not be found by indulging your neighbor’s foolishness, or overlooking dangerous mistakes.Real respect is found in disagreement.The most important thing we can do for each other is disagree vigorously and thoughtfully so that we can all get closer to the truth.

8.Science is as much a religious ideology as religion is.

At their cores, religions and science have a profound difference.The essence of religion is sustaining belief in the face of doubts, obeying authority, and conforming to a fixed set of doctrines.By contrast, the most important discovery that humans have ever made is the scientific method.The essence of that method is diametrically opposed to religious ideals:actively seek out disconfirming evidence.The cardinal virtues of the scientific approach are to doubt, analyze, critique, be skeptical, and always be prepared to draw a different conclusion if the evidence demands it.